[cratylus]

Well if they were moderated it's not obvious to me that it happened. The last post I recall seeing was from Parnassus and it's the one right above yours right now. Moderation is not evil. If it was done I'd imagine the moderator had a good reason - and they don't need to tell us what it was.

Well I have to admit to a certain level of
exasperation. Perhaps I am simply misunderstanding
something. I hope that is the case.

But I've just had my posts deleted twice in
two separate threads...this last time on a
thread *I* started, each time posts that
were not only well-intentioned, but as far
as I know, violatory of no rule.

I just looked around TMS again for posting rules
regarding content, and did not find them
(except for the typical TOS stuff about
"objectionable" messages).

Perhaps I've just missed something obvious and
I fully deserved the hosing I got.

Absent an explanation, you'll forgive me for
not automatically assuming the action was just.

I'm going to admit to some frustration at
having a thread I started regarding post deletion
be subjected to the arbitrary, aesthetic deletion
I objected to in the first place.

I don't think it's too much to ask to allow
posts that do not violate site rules to stand.

I don't think it's too much to ask that if
posts are deleted for reasons other than rule
violations, that some explanation be provided.

I've yet to challenge Lasher's authority to
do as he pleases. I've yet to denounce all forum
moderation as wrong. Let's not pretend I'm
suggesting moderation is evil, or that I'm declaring
Lasher *has* to do anything.

I'm just feeling like maybe this site isn't
a place that respects my good-faith posting in
a way that conforms to the rules.

So, I don't know. I'm at a loss. Maybe I should just
accept there's an incompatibility here between
what I think is reasonable and how the site will
be run. I suppose I should just get the hint and shut up.

-Crat
LPMuds.net - Index

[Brody]

Well, Crat, I agreed in the previous thread that the cuts hindered the comprehensibility of the discussion. I don't recall which of your posts were cut in *this* thread - I just remember someone's post, followed up by something from Xerihae.

It's actually kind of apt that posts are being cut in a thread about the cutting of posts in another thread, but it comes down to the moderation style and judgment calls. And, again, this is the sort of thing I'd love to see discussed in a special moderators-only forum area.

[Xerihae]

Originally Posted by cratylus But I've just had my posts deleted twice in two separate threads...this last time on a thread *I* started, each time posts that were not only well-intentioned, but as far as I know, violatory of no rule.

I don't think there was anything wrong with your post. It was, however, a reply to mine, which in itself was a reply to the post that needed to be deleted. Since just deleting the post would have left yours and mine floating around with the basis of them gone, it made more sense to delete all three to keep the readability of the thread intact instead of apparent gaps appearing because of deleted posts.

If I'd been able to remove the offending post myself then my reply would never have surfaced, and neither would yours to mine, so no harm done really.

[Samson]

Originally Posted by cratylus Absent an explanation, you'll forgive me for not automatically assuming the action was just.

I think this attitude right here is at the heart of the problem. When a post is cut, my first reaction isn't "oh no! censorship!" it's curiosity more than anything else. But my gut doesn't immediately lead me to assuming it WASN'T just.

[cratylus]

Absent an explanation, you'll forgive me for not automatically assuming the action was just.

Originally Posted by Samson I think this attitude right here is at the heart of the problem. When a post is cut, my first reaction isn't "oh no! censorship!" it's curiosity more than anything else. But my gut doesn't immediately lead me to assuming it WASN'T just.

I don't see how my not making an assumption
is either "attitude" or a "problem". I also don't recall
my first reaction being "oh no! censorship!"

I simply asked what happened, and was subsequently informed.

I continue to be perplexed by your response to things I have not said.

-Crat
LPMuds.net - Index

[Samson]

The overall context of the longer response I quoted that from is where I got it from. The general feel it projected was one of "why are you censoring me?" when the moderation was not directed at you. Your reply was simply collateral damage after removing the one that moderation WAS directed at.

The part I quoted seemed to sum up what I got from it - that you think unexplained moderator action is unjust.

Which leads me to another point. If you hadn't mentioned it happening, would anyone have noticed? I infer from Brody's reply to you that he might have, but aside from that, did anyone else? What purpose is served by mentioning it? Woudln't the "hey, why did you torch my post?" question be better handled as a PM to the particular forum moderator, or to Lasher? Is it really necessary to challenge the authority in public every time?

And you'll have to forgive me if I'm rambling or making no sense - it's a bit late right now

[Emil]

Originally Posted by Brody Yeah, it was a fairly painless cut. A bit of a snarky poke to try to get a reaction that had nothing to do with the topic at hand, followed by a post that noted the lack of usefulness in the snarky poke post. I'm cool with the moderation.

The post was mine, and I am not cool with the moderation.

Given the topic of this thread is posting behavior and moderation, I think my question was on topic, as a reaction to a smug statement from another poster.

[cratylus]

The overall context of the longer response I quoted that from is where I got it from. The general feel it projected was one of "why are you censoring me?" when the moderation was not directed at you.

I guess I don't see what's so wrong with asking such a question. And
I would like to point out that even if it is true my post wasn't the
original target, it's been erased all the same, making the moderation
directed at me too. Someone selected my post, and deleted it.

The part I quoted seemed to sum up what I got from it - that you think unexplained moderator action is unjust.

I did not say that, nor did I imply it. I stated that I would not assume
the action was just. This does not mean I assumed anything else. If
I had meant my words to form an argument that Lasher's moderation
was unjust, I would have crafted them so in an unambiguous manner.
I think you know me well enough to know I'm not going to beat around
the bush when I have such an opinion.

What I meant was that I would not be making an assumption,
absent an explanation, and that is what I wrote.

What purpose is served by mentioning it? Woudln't the "hey, why did you torch my post?" question be better handled as a PM to the particular forum moderator, or to Lasher?

I think it is healthy to openly discuss the criteria
used for the removal of posts. This way, not only the
direct participants learn what's ok/!ok, but so do
folks reading the thread later. It helps become a
body of understood precedent folks can use to
determine whether the unwritten rules are acceptable
to them, and if so, where the boundaries lie.

I feel uncomfortable participating in an activity where
the rules are unwritten and their application by
referees is unexplained.

Asking the referees to openly justify the calls, in
the absence of a rulebook, is not only natural, but
helpful for everyone.

Is it really necessary to challenge the authority in public every time?

If the decision was just, the question is an opportunity
for the admin to demonstrate her righteousness. If it
was unjust, then it is an opportunity for her to seek
to right the wrong. Either way, public discussion of
rules that apply to everyone isn't what needs justification.

-Crat
LPMuds.net - Index